DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1 December 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 21 recites “(ii) three sets of directional tows are interleaving across plies to form a triaxial braid,” which appears to contain a grammatical error. The examiner suspects the intent of the applicant was to recite this portion of the claim as ““(ii) three sets of directional tows are interleaved across plies to form a triaxial braid” and will be examined on the merits as such. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “two sets of directional tows” and “three sets of directional tows.” The scope of claim 21 is indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring back to the unidirectional tows from any one of the first, second, third, or fourth group of plies from claim 1, or if the applicant is referring to a different set of tows altogether. To further prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the intent of the applicant was to have these portions of claim 21 recite “two sets of unidirectional tows” and “three sets of unidirectional tows,” respectfully, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0348876 (hereinafter “Lin”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0136925 (hereinafter “Chamberlain”), and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0144595 (hereinafter “Wilenski”).Regarding claims 1 and 11-14 Lin teaches a laminar composite article comprising a plurality of plies (multiply laminate for an airfoil section) (abstract and paragraph [0065]), where each ply has a plurality of tows that are oriented in a single direction in each respective ply (paragraphs [0035] and [0038]). Lin teaches that the orientation of each of the plies is determined to provide the desired mechanical properties for the airfoil, including desired tensile strength in a given direction as necessary (paragraph [0035]), and that a 0° orientation describes a ply that is laid up so that its line of fiber tows is substantially parallel to a preselected plane of the component, for example the long dimension or axis (not shown) of a turbine blade, and a 90° orientation describes a ply oriented at substantially 90° to the preselected plane (paragraph [0035]). Lin teaches that the orientation of the unidirectional tows may be varied relative to adjacent plies, and that two or more plies may have the same orientation (for example, via the example sequence of 0°, +45°, −45°, 90°, - [sic] 45°, +45°, 0° in paragraph [0035]). The different group of plies in the example sequence in paragraph [0035] corresponds to: a first group of plies having a number of plies N1 each having unidirectional tows oriented in a first direction β1; a second group of plies having a number of plies N2 each having unidirectional tows oriented in a second direction β2; where β1 is not equal to β2; a third group of plies having a number of plies N3 each having unidirectional tows oriented in a third direction β3; a fourth group of plies having a number of plies N4 each having unidirectional tows oriented in a fourth direction β4; wherein N1, N2, N3, and N4 are integer numbers; and the unidirectional tows from the first group of plies are displaced from the unidirectional tows of the third group of plies, and wherein the unidirectional tows from the second group of plies are displaced from the unidirectional tows of the fourth group of plies. Lin also teaches the application of the different plies, including the number of plies and their orientations, is predetermined to provide desired mechanical properties for airfoil (paragraphs [0034] – [0037]). Lin does not explicitly teach: (i) the sum of N1, N2, N3 and N4 is equal to the total number of plies in the article; (ii) N1, N2, N3 and N4 form a geometrical series; and/or (iii) β1 is equal to β3 and β2 is equal to β4. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine the number of plies in each of their respective orientations using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired mechanical properties for the airfoil. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Lin does not explicitly teach: the first group of plies includes a first tow, a second tow and a third tow, wherein a first spacing between the first tow and the second tow is different from a second spacing between the second tow and the third tow or a thickness of the first tow within the plane of the ply is different from a thickness of the second tow within the plane of the ply; the first group of plies has an average tow thickness of Tn1 that is different from an average tow thickness Tn2 of the second group of plies; the first group of plies has an average tow spacing of dn1 that is different from an average tow spacing dn2 of the second group of plies; and/or the at least one tow of different thickness comprises fibers of a different denier from that of neighboring tows or wherein the fiber count per tow is different from that of neighboring tows. Chamberlain teaches alternating different layers of fiber fabric to achieve porosity, infiltration, and/or other objectives. Different layers of the structure may be configured differently to achieve different objectives in different regions of the structure. The fiber tow spacing, fiber count (corresponding to a(n average) thickness of the fiber tow, where the at least one tow of different thickness comprises a fiber count per tow that is different from that of neighboring tows) and/or other characteristics may be varied within individual layers (spacing between tows or thickness of tows within the plane of the ply is different) and/or among different layers (first group of plies has an average tow thickness of Tn1 and an average tow spacing of dn1 which is different from an average tow thickness Tn2 and an average tow spacing dn2 of the second group of plies) of the structure (abstract). Chamberlain teaches each layer or ply 18, 20 includes at least three tows 12, 14 (paragraph [0025] and Figure 1), which corresponds to a first group of plies includes a first tow, a second tow and a third tow, wherein a first spacing between the first tow and the second tow is different from a second spacing between the second tow and the third tow and/or a thickness of the first tow within the plane of the ply is different from a thickness of the second tow within the plane of the ply. Chamberlain teaches the alternating layers of fiber fabrics that have varying fiber tow spacing are arranged to minimize tow overlap and/or to create larger or smaller void spaces in different internal regions of the composite material, which permits the areal weight to be tuned for mechanical performance and/or infiltration performance (paragraph [0006]). Chamberlain teaches by preventing fiber tow crossovers, the infiltration of polymers in localized regions of the composite material is improved (paragraphs [0021] and [0039]). Lin and Chamberlain are analogous inventions in the field of multiply laminates. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plurality of tows from a first ply (first group of plies) of Lin with the fiber tow spacing and/or fiber count (corresponding to a thickness of the fiber tow) of Chamberlain to minimize tow overlap and/or to create larger or smaller void spaces in different internal regions of the composite material, which permits the areal weight to be tuned for mechanical performance and/or infiltration performance. Lin does not explicitly teach a tow interlocking mechanism is formed between the groups of plies. Wilenski teaches a composite laminate comprising an interlayer between two different fiber beds (abstract). Wilenski teaches the fibers beds include plies of unidirectionally oriented reinforcing fibers (paragraph [0017]). Wilenski teaches a configuration in which regions of fibers 122 are fused by mechanical interlocking (tow interlocking mechanism formed between groups of plies) (paragraph [0026]). Wilenski teaches the mechanical interlocking absorbs energy and impedes crack propagation, thereby improving an in-plane mode I crack and an in-plane mode II crack performance of the composite laminate, which improves interlaminar toughness and impact properties (paragraph [0030]). Lin and Wilenski are analogous inventions in the field of composite laminates. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plurality of plies of the composite article of Lin with the tow interlocking mechanism of Wilenski to improve interlaminar toughness and impact properties of the laminate.Regarding claim 5 As previously mentioned, Lin teaches the application of the different plies, including the number of plies and their orientations, is determined to provide the desired mechanical properties for airfoil (paragraphs [0034] – [0037]). Lin does not explicitly teach N1 is not equal to N2. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine the number of plies in each of their respective orientations using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired mechanical properties for the airfoil. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Regarding claim 8 In addition, Lin teaches the application of the different plies, including the number of plies and their orientations, is determined to provide the desired mechanical properties for airfoil (paragraphs [0034] – [0037]). Lin does not explicitly teach N1, N2, N3 and N4 are all different from each other. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine the number of plies in each of their respective orientations using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired mechanical properties for the airfoil. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, Chamberlain and Wilenski as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0303392 (hereinafter “Naigertsik”) and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0186081 (hereinafter “Mohamed”).Regarding claim 21 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Lin does not explicitly teach one of: (i) two sets of unidirectional tows are interleaved across plies to form an orthogonal weave; and (ii) three sets of unidirectional tows are interleaved across plies to form a triaxial braid. Naigertsik teaches a 3D woven fabric with an orthogonal weaving pattern comprising a first group of fibers 202, 204 and a second group of fibers 206, where the first group of fibers 202, 204 are stacked in multiple layers (paragraph [0042]). Naigertsik teaches each fiber 202 extends lengthwise in an x-axis direction, and each fiber 204 extends lengthwise in a y-axis direction, where each layer includes either fibers 202 or fibers 204 (paragraph [0042] and Figure 5A), which corresponds to two or three sets of unidirectional tows. Naigertsik teaches the second group of fibers 206 are interlaced with the first group of fibers 202, 204, and extend along a z-axis direction, which is orthogonal to the x-axis and y-axis directions (Id), which corresponds to one of: (i) two sets of unidirectional tows are interleaved across plies to form an orthogonal weave; and (ii) three sets of unidirectional tows are interleaved across plies to form a triaxial braid. Mohamed teaches the benefits of using Z-direction fibers in a composite material stack includes higher transverse shear strength and total suppression of delamination of the formed fabrics (paragraph [0015]). Lin, Naigertsik, and Mohamed are analogous inventions in the field of composite laminates. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plurality of plies of Lin with the interlaced z-axis direction extending second group of fibers 206 of Naigertsik to improve the transverse shear strength and total delamination suppression of the composite laminate, as taught by Mohamed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued the prior art of record, Lin, Chamberlain, and Wilenski, when considered alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest the limitations of amended claim 1; specifically, the prior art of record fails to meet the limitations to the claim which requires: (i) N1, N2, N3 and N4 are integer numbers where the sum of N1, N2, N3 and N4 is equal to the total number of plies in the article; and (ii) N1, N2, N3 and N4 to form a geometrical series. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding (i), the number of plies for each set of plies must be an integer number because the presence of a ply is equal to 1 ply, and the summation of the numbers of plies can only correspond to an integer. The “N1, N2, N3 and N4 is equal to the total number of plies in the article” limitation is addressed below. Regarding (ii), Lin teaches, which is provided in the rejection of record, the application of the different plies, including the number of plies and their orientations, is predetermined to provide desired mechanical properties for the airfoil (paragraphs [0034] – [0037]). Therefore, the examiner has taken the position that it would require nothing more than routine skill/experimentation to determine the total number of plies and their orientation to achieve the desired mechanical properties of the manufactured composite article. This determination is commensurate in scope with all the plies being used for forming the composite article, which corresponds to the total number of plies that are present in the article.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights